Sunday, November 30, 2008

Candidates line up to Replace Barack's Enforcer Rahm Emanuel!

Candidates line up to Replace Barack's Enforcer Rahm Emanuel!



Clout-heavy Chicago politicians are lining up to replace U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, prompting some experts to wonder if the local Democratic party will split on whom to anoint as his successor. The strength of the contenders may make it tough for Democrats to unite behind one candidate for the congressional seat. Also in question is whether Mayor Richard Daley will name a favorite. Emanuel, 48, has accepted the job as chief of staff to President-elect Barack Obama and is expected to step down soon, leaving two years on his second term with more than 180 days before the next election. Under Illinois law, that means a special election will be held to replace him.

In a city where Democrats rule, the party stamp of approval usually assures a candidate's victory. Emanuel was the Democrats' endorsed candidate when he ran for his seat as representative of the 5th district on Chicago's far northwest side. So was the person Emanuel replaced, now-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But it's possible that the next person won't be endorsed by the party, said University of Illinois-Chicago political science professor and former city alderman Dick Simpson. Crowded field: The contenders for Emanuel's seat include many with strong claims to the district — which may result in a divided vote that gives no one a majority or an endorsement, Simpson said. Daley may not endorse a candidate for fear of alienating others who want the spot, attorney and columnist Russ Stewart said.

Candidates include 38th Ward Alderman Thomas Allen, 47th Ward Alderman Gene Schulter, Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley and state Reps. John Fritchey and Nancy Kaszak. "The endorsement is critical. If you have an open primary with no endorsement and warring fiefdoms, the candidate with the broadest appeal is going to win," Stewart said. In Chicago, he said, it's rare for an election to play out without the Democratic Party or Daley tipping the scales. Emanuel's office has not returned phone messages seeking comment on when he might resign. City authorities would like the special primary and general election to correspond with suburban elections already planned for February and April and have sent Blagojevich a written plea to that effect, said Jim Allen, spokesman for the Chicago Board of Elections. "That would minimize costs and minimize voter confusion," he said. Blagojevich's office said Thursday they received the request but had no other comment. Candidates line up to replace Emanuel

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Czech Mayors call on Obama to drop Missile defense Shield! as US and Russia unlikely to agree once again amidst Black Kalingrad missile humor!

Czech Mayors call on Obama to drop Missile defense Shield!



Meanwhile The Russian foreign minister said on Friday that Moscow and Washington were unlikely to reach a final agreement on a planned U.S. missile shield for central Europe during talks in December. Commenting on the possible replacement of outgoing U.S. Under Secretary of State John Rood as the U.S. top negotiator at missile shield talks with Moscow, Sergei Lavrov said: "If for some reason we see a reshuffling of personnel, I do not think this will have any impact on our position," Sergei Lavrov said.
"The essence of the problem, though, is that we are unlikely to finally dot all the i's in December," he said. He admitted however that progress on the issue could be made through "holding frank conversations and sticking to earlier reached agreements." Moscow has fiercely opposed the planned U.S. deployment of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, saying they will pose a threat to its national security. Washington has said the bases are necessary in order to counter possible strikes from "rogue" states like Iran.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier threatened to deploy Iskander-M short-range missiles in the country's Kaliningrad exclave, which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania, if the U.S. missile defense system was deployed in central Europe. However, Medvedev subsequently said in an interview with France's Figaro newspaper that Russia could "reconsider this response if the new U.S. administration is ready to once again review and analyze all the consequences of its decisions to deploy the missiles and radar facilities. US and Russia unlikely to agree period

Trying to make light of the situation This is what passes for humor in Kaliningrad these days: Iskander missile tourism. Dipping deep into his reservoir of black humor, Vladimir N. Abramov tries out this sales pitch for his region, a cold war garrison turned European trade hub that may, once again, become a staging ground for missiles pointed west. "Attracting tourists to see an Iskander is a creative idea," said Abramov, a political scientist. "Especially for the Poles. When it is flying toward them, they may not be able to see it. Come to Kaliningrad! Pose next to the missile which is going to kill you."

Somewhere behind the joke is a real question about the future of Kaliningrad. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow has devised a series of plans for this old military outpost, wedged on the Baltic Sea between Lithuania and Poland. Former President Boris Yeltsin saw it as the Russian Hong Kong, a free trade zone to entice foreign investors. Yeltsin's successor, Vladimir Putin, drew it closer to Moscow, planning a nuclear power plant that would export energy to Europe. As oil and gas wealth poured into Russia, more ideas emerged: Las Vegas-style gambling, for instance, and a constellation of luxury resorts.

The most recent idea arrived early this month, when President Dmitri Medvedev said Russia would stage short-range Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad if the United States proceeded with missile defense facilities in the Czech Republic and Poland. The proposal is seen by many as rhetorical — a bargaining chip to use with a new American president. But if carried out, it would mark Kaliningrad's first rearming against the West since the end of the Soviet Union, and another twist in an old identity crisis: Is it Russia's window, open to Europe, or a turret for firing on it? Black humor regarding Kalingrad missiles

* While all this is going on amidst the deepening created financial crises in the US and the world and the worsening so called Terrorism highlighted in Mumbai that I emphasize once again is just beginning and like everything will get much worse I reiterate Obama said while running for President that he had no stance on the missile defense shield and I have faith he will do the right thing there too and diffuse the situation Bush created. I reiterate give Obama a chance and the world will not be disappointed!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Friday, November 28, 2008

Where is the Change? By Jerome Grossman: My observation, Insiders are needed to give the architect of change the opportunity to implement Change!


Is it too early to criticize Barack Obama for his program, his appointments, and his policies? He is not yet president but he is dominating the news and influencing markets and foreign-policy as though he had already been inaugurated. At the same time, he tells us that we have only one president at a time and that president is George W. Bush.

Personnel indicates policy, often determines policy, and Obama's appointments are from the establishment on both domestic and foreign affairs. Yet Obama's prime message during his meteoric rise to power was "change". How can establishment figures from both parties install significant change?
Obama’s foreign and military policies will be developed by four power centers: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and National Security Adviser, Marine General James Jones. All supported the invasion of Iraq; none advocate immediate withdrawal from that country or revision of US world-wide military involvement.

Obama's economic team is dominated by veterans of the Clinton and Bush administrations, who participated in the repeal of financial regulations, an act that precipitated the current crisis. Robert Rubin guided Citicorp to its current bankrupt position, Lawrence Summers was the prime mover for the repeal and Timothy Geithner is a Bush appointee. How can Obama entrust the American economy to these failures? During his campaign Barack Obama exhorted the adoring crowds of supporters with, “We are the people we have been waiting for". Well, where are these people? He promised reform ideas for fundamental change of the system. The voters projected on him their personal ideals and idiosyncratic hopes for change. They are sure to be disappointed at Obama’s emphasis on traditional experience by establishment figures who brought us to the current crisis.

And a large part of the Obama vote came from liberals. It's fair to ask, "Where are the liberals in the Obama administration?" Obama is seeking support from conservative Republicans, offers to include their ideas and opinions in his programs, and appoints them to key positions, a process that pushes the Obama agenda in a conservative direction. Do the liberals have the abilities and experience to manage these bureaucracies, to furnish the necessary ideas? For answers consult the Nobel Prize winners, the faculties of our finest universities, the managers of some of our largest businesses. The liberals are there, in big numbers, but not on Obama’s list. Obama needs to answer important questions about his administration. Where are the liberals? Where are the people who voted against the war? Where are the prescient who warned against financial deregulation? Where are the advisors who will give Obama a full range of policy options to make him a better problem solver and successful president? Relentless Liberal

I firmly believe Obama at heart is righteous and well intentioned. He absolutely will do the right thing for average Americans, our America, and the world as a whole if given the chance! Most of Obama's hand is forced! He is the President elect, he has placated those needed to get elected and He will have to fight the so called war on terror that was instigated and used as a tool to further our global desires and he must battle the allowed failing infrastructure of America and the purposely created financial collapse. The timing of all this coming to a head right now in the perfect storm is no coincidence. Obama has the right temperament to do this and he will! In my mind and in his own words not only would we criticize him for it but he can not do it with people new to the game of Politics or Washington!

He must out of necessity chose proven leaders in their prospective fields. The change will come from him and he is the purveyor of change! He will take care of average Americans and our America and he will placate liberals whose voice is needed but You see what is happening in India and in America and around the world and we are winning nothing as it is just beginning. We will prevail but Americans and those we are allied with must wake up and realize this is all just beginning!He is the best we have right now but I am afraid Bush already laid the foundation of the future and we must have knowledgeable people to deal with it tempered by the voice of change coming from Obama the new Decider!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Because Bush is the lamest Duck Americans seek morning again from Obama so vetting Historically fast And Obama taking charge earlier than usual!





I have written numerous articles on the fact that Bush has been following what I know as the Russian Doctrine of Destruction to get rid of existing order and replace it with a new version. In doing so you must create chaos and then appear to fix it by emplacing your new order. In doing so Bush has made a hell of a mess not only of the US but of the entire world. I have written many manifestos and documents stating we are still waiting for our shining light to lead us out of the dark tunnel Bush has led us down with his fear mongering. We now have our shining light in Obama and he impresses me more every day! Our citizens know Obama is our shining light and lame Duck Bush has now become the lamest Duck!

We have "only one President at a time," Barack Obama said in his debut press conference as President-elect. Normally, that would be a safe assumption — but we're learning not to assume anything as the charcoal-dreary economic winter approaches. By mid-November, with the financial crisis growing worse by the day, it had become obvious that one President was no longer enough (at least not the President we had). So, in the days before Thanksgiving, Obama began to move — if not to take charge outright, then at least to preview what things will be like when he does take over in January. He became a more public presence, taking questions from the press three days in a row. He named his economic team. He promised an enormous stimulus package that would somehow create 2.5 million new jobs, and began to maneuver the new Congress toward having the bill ready for him to sign — in a dramatic ceremony, no doubt — as soon as he assumes office.

That we have slightly more than one President for the moment is mostly a consequence of the extraordinary economic times. Even if George Washington were the incumbent, the markets would want to know what John Adams was planning to do after his Inauguration. And yet this final humiliation seems particularly appropriate for George W. Bush. At the end of a presidency of stupefying ineptitude, he has become the lamest of all possible duck. It is in the nature of mainstream journalism to attempt to be kind to Presidents when they are coming and going but to be fiercely skeptical in between. I've been feeling sorry for Bush lately, a feeling partly induced by recent fictional depictions of the President as an amiable lunkhead in Oliver Stone's W. and in Curtis Sittenfeld's terrific novel American Wife. There was a photo in the New York Times that seemed to sum up his current circumstance: Bush in Peru, dressed in an alpaca poncho, standing alone just after the photo op at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, with various Asian leaders departing the stage, none of them making eye contact with him. Bush has that forlorn what-the-hell-happened? expression on his face, the one that has marked his presidency at difficult times. You never want to see the President of the United States looking like that. Bush defined by intellectual laziness

As a result of the mess Bush has made of everything and his perceived ineptitude as he purposely set out to destroy existing societal and world order and replace it with his new version not to to say anything about the world but Many Americans may be long on enthusiasm for President-elect Barack Obama's history-making election but may be short on something he's asking for: patience regarding the economy. "The economy's likely to get worse before it gets better. Full recovery will not happen immediately," Obama said Monday. How much time will voters give the new president to turn things around? With the magnitude of the crisis sinking in, the public may be giving the future president some breathing room. In the meantime, Obama might be guided by President Reagan's experience in the 1980s.

No sooner did Reagan take office than the economy began to get a lot worse. Unemployment jumped to more than 10 percent, the highest level since the 1930s. It's about 6½ percent now. By 1982, voters were getting anxious. Republicans lost 26 House seats in the midterm election. President Reagan's response? Stay the course. A lot of voters stuck with Reagan because he had defined a course. By 1984, their confidence paid off. "It's morning again in America. Today, more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country's history," a 1984 Reagan presidential campaign ad said. Obama seems to be channeling Reagan's optimism. "[We need] to summon that spirit of determination and optimism that has always defined us," Obama said. More important, Obama has to rally the public behind his economic plan. Thanks to Obama morning is coming again

Because of this President-elect Barack Obama is already making presidential history by naming -- or at least his transition team is leaking to the press -- his Cabinet picks faster than nearly all of his predecessors. "If we do not act swiftly and boldly, most experts believe that we could lose millions of jobs next year," Obama said Monday. With an economic crisis spiraling out of control and a lame duck in the oval office, presidential scholars say the next commander in chief simply had no choice.

"This is really unprecedented. But it's an unprecedented situation," said Larry Sabato, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia. "Obama is doing what the public and the markets demand be done -- and that is to show that the next president is really in charge before he even takes the oath of office." The conventional wisdom by observers was that the Obama transition team's vigorous vetting requirements would slow down the selection process, or scare away talent altogether. After all, in addition to the already invasive FBI background check, the Obama team is requiring prospective candidates to complete a seven-page questionnaire that requires the disclosure of nearly every last private detail. In addition to the obvious questions involving past criminal history, candidates are asked about personal diaries, past blog posts and the financial entanglements of extended family members.

"This questionnaire they've been giving to people who are thinking about signing up for a government job is extremely invasive," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst and adviser to four past presidents. "I've never seen anything like this at the presidential level before -- the FBI asks these kind of questions, but to have the presidential transition team asking these questions requires ... great volumes of records that have to be checked out." Cabinet vetting historically fast and invasive

* Because of the underhanded Republicans and their search for dirt to destroy the process of repairing the damage Bush has done to America and the world this is what we have come to! Obama does not have any time but this historical President must take historical action long before day one and he has started. Behind the scenes while the lame Duck Bush continues to act stupid and play his mindless childish games Obama has already taken control to right the ship called America that Bush has purposely put on the rocks. We have our shining light and I now have hope for the future!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Obama up front says one at a time, Bush is President while taking control from behind the scenes!


At long last, a team. And it's formidable. With Tim Geithner eyed for the head of the Treasury Department, President-elect Barack Obama has chosen a fellow already knee-deep in the bailout, someone who gets what has gone right and is smart enough to understand what could go very wrong. And in Larry Summers -- selected as director of the National Economic Council -- Obama has a seasoned Washington hand and brilliant economist who actually remembers what it's like to balance the budget. Imagine that.

Not only is there a team, but there's also a plan. It's a stimulus package with a price tag that could total as much as $700 billion over the next two years. It's as much as Congress allowed for the Wall Street bailout, and more than we've spent in Iraq. The incoming administration is also sending clear signals that it could delay its promise to repeal President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. All of which are good signs. What we're seeing -- even before Obama is sworn in -- is a changing of the guard, so the new folks are ready to take charge on Day One. "Of course this is the right thing to do and a necessity but Republicans are grumbling!

Some Republicans have predictably begun to grumble about the size of the stimulus package, but here's a question: What would you in the GOP do differently? Would you continue the deregulation that got us into this mess? And didn't you folks break the bank over the last couple of years? Aren't even some of the most conservative economists now advising spending as a way to get ourselves out of this hole? So, when House Minority Leader John Boehner gripes, as he did Sunday in a same-old, same-old refrain that "the American people know that more Washington spending isn't the answer," the logical response is: OK, what do you suggest? Obama has already suggested tax cuts for the middle class, so you can't start with that. Got anything better to offer? Truth is, there's no time for the old (and unproductive) political games. If the opposition party is smart, it will sit down around the table Obama is setting and become a part of fixing America's problems. Standing on the sidelines and booing -- without offering constructive suggestions -- is going to be seen for what it is: political posturing of the very sort Americans voted against. Opposition is fine, even necessary, but it has to be rooted in ideas, not blind ideology. Obama criticized for helping our America

Pushing the calendar, and maybe his luck, President-elect Barack Obama is urging rapid approval of a massive economic stimulus package meant to calm turbulent financial markets. He will not be president for another eight weeks, and the politically safer route might be to lie low as President George W. Bush finishes his rocky term. But in announcing his economic team Monday at a White House-style news conference, Obama has chosen to use the bully pulpit even before he assumes the office, gambling that he can soften the economy's fall while he continues to fill out the rest of his cabinet. "The truth is, we do not have a minute to waste. These extraordinary stresses on our financial system require extraordinary policy responses," Obama said, introducing New York Federal Reserve Bank president Timothy Geithner as his treasury secretary and Lawrence Summers, a former treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, to lead the National Economic Council.

Obama has said repeatedly there can be only one president at a time, and has kept a relatively low public profile as Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have tried to address the mortgage and credit crisis that threaten a deep global recession. That changed at his news conference Monday, when the president-elect pressed for passage of a multibillion-dollar stimulus plan aimed at creating jobs, easing the home foreclosure crisis and rescuing the struggling auto industry. Doug Astolfi, a presidential historian at Florida's St. Leo University, said that because of the recent stock market plunge Obama had little choice but to step forward. "Had he not gotten involved, the potential for really disastrous shifts in the economy were all there," Astolfi said, adding that until his inauguration Obama is still insulated from blame if things get worse. "He can key in a team and push for policies. But if bad things happen he's protected from most criticism because it's the fault of the people who are still there," Astolfi said.

By stepping out so forcefully, Obama signaled he was not following the example of another Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was elected in 1932 during another period of economic calamity. Roosevelt refused to cooperate during the transition with his vanquished predecessor, Republican Herbert Hoover, waiting instead to tackle the crisis after he was sworn in as president. Obama said Monday he had spoken to Bush and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke about the proposed government bailout of Citigroup Inc. "My commitment is to do what's required so that our financial system works and credit flows. President Bush has indicated that he has the same approach, the same attitude,"

Obama said. But Obama stepped symbolically away from Bush as well, stressing repeatedly that his stimulus plan was aimed at middle-class wage earners, not just big financial institutions. It was an implicit reminder that many of Bush's economic policies have favored the wealthy. "We cannot have a thriving Wall Street without a thriving Main Street, that in this country we rise or fall as one nation, as one people," Obama said, promising to make good on his pledge to bring tax relief to families earning less than $250,000 a year. Jack Pitney, a government professor at California's Claremont McKenna College, said Obama was showing "equal parts assertiveness and reassurance" by his decision to step forward. "He's not trying to usurp the president's authority," Pitney said, "but he's trying to prepare the groundwork for the moment he takes the oath." Obama using bully pulpit to tackle economy

* Please usurp Bush's authority someone has to. He has proven he can not handle it! He refuses to do the right thing for Average Americans and our America while constantly entrenching his new elitist version! Obama since being elected has said their is only one President at a time but after 8 years of destruction by Bush I do not care if it is behind the scenes but I am ready for Obama to start doing the right thing for our America. We can not take any more of Bush's success neither can the world!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Bush can simply pardon Cheney (and everyone else) and immediately resign. Cheney becomes president and pardons him, perfectly legal!


As you know I am very concerned with undoing everything Bush has done to create his new Disorder more importantly I want him held accountable! President-elect Barack Obama will have limited authority to overturn federal regulations approved in the waning months of the Bush administration. But a little-used power offers the new Democratic Congress an early test of how aggressively lawmakers might unravel such rules pushed through by Republicans. Under a special fast-track authority, Congress could repeal current rules from as far back as May. Many are related to the environment and health. Aside from congressional action, such changes involve a laborious rule-making process that can take years.

The Congressional Review Act of 1996, used just once in the past 12 years, could become a sweeping tool for Democrats against late regulations from the Bush presidency. Environmental activists are compiling lists of regulations they believe Congress should target, including ones covering water pollution at huge farms, pollution control equipment at older power plants and hazardous waste restrictions. "One of the things to watch is whether there are actions in Congress that reflect a new philosophy that is a different direction than the Bush administration, which has been a pro-industry approach to governing," said Rick Melberth, an expert at the Washington-based OMB Watch, a nonprofit watchdog organization.

Bristling over suggestions the Bush administration was too cozy with industry, the White House has defended its new regulations and cites requirements for increased auto fuel efficiency as "maybe not particularly welcomed by members of the business community." "We're trying to do them in the best way that protects the interests of the nation," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said at a news briefing. For pending rules, Obama could freeze them as soon as he takes office in January. Separately, Obama could use his presidential authority to reverse executive orders by Bush on policies such as stem cell research and the gag rule on overseas family planning groups that might advise women on abortion. "There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Obama's transition chief, John Podesta, said on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set." But once regulations are in effect, only Congress could overturn them, outside the cumbersome rule-making process. fast track to kill Bush's rule

Just as important is making sure he is held accountable for his destruction and can not pardon himself and his cronies! From Democrats.com: As we celebrate our new President-elect and all the changes he will bring to our nation, we must not turn a blind eye to the final actions of George Bush. Incredibly, Washington is already buzzing with Bush's plans to block all investigations of his crimes and even to pardon everyone involved - including Cheney and himself. Chris Matthews is even counting down the days .

Does Bush have the power to pardon everyone in his administration? Yes. Will he abuse that power to stay out of jail? Only if we let him. "you bet he will if he can find a way" We must create a groundswell of opposition to any pardons by George Bush, so he understands that he will be impeached and prosecuted for issuing corrupt pardons.

Please help us launch a massive movement against pardons by signing our petition to Congress and telling your friends:
We will announce additional plans to stop Bush's pardons in the coming days

* We must undo all bush's damage and prevent him from getting away with it, Please help! While Obama's team is endeavoring to undo all Bush's damage his team is endeavoring to make it as permanent as possible and enable him and his fellow criminals to get away with their destruction of our America our Constitution and the myriad of treasonous crimes around the world. We must not relent in attempting to hold him accountable!

Charlotte Dennett promised that, if she won her race for attorney general of Vermont in the recent election, she would prosecute George W. Bush for the murder of 4,000 American soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians after he left office. Unfortunately, Dennett did not become Vermont's attorney general. But it is possible (perhaps very possible) that one or more of our other 49 state attorneys general will take up that case after Jan. 20. Hopefully, that AG will appoint -- as Dennett promised to do --famed criminal attorney Vincent Bugliosi (author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder) as special prosecutor. However, there will be no prosecution or trial of George Bush -- or Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld, or Condoleezza Rice, or any of the others who deliberately deceived America into a war that should never have been waged -- if Bush decides to pardon not only his accomplices in crime but also himself.

We know that a president can pardon anyone, for any reason, and for any federal crime (except in cases of impeachment), not only after a conviction has been handed down in trial, but before any trial has even taken place, indeed before any charges have even been filed -- as Gerald Ford infamously pardoned Richard Nixon for Watergate; as George H. W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, Elliott Abrams and various CIA officials accused and/or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair; as Bill Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for drug trafficking and financier Marc Rich for tax evasion (after Rich's wife made a significant donation to the Clinton Presidential Library); and as current President George W. Bush more recently commuted "Scooter" Libby's prison term. So -- can Bush do it? Can he pardon himself before leaving office?

** According to attorneys whom I asked, there is no definitive legal answer.There is no case law on the subject and not even much legal analysis of the possibility. All there seems to be are three law review articles that analyze the self-pardon power with arguments for and against its legality. (I am convinced by the arguments against its legality, but given the present Supreme Court, who knows?). You might be interested in a much less troublesome -- and perfectly legal -- route that Bush can take to avoid prosecution. He can simply pardon Cheney (and everyone else) and immediately resign. Cheney then becomes president and pardons him. Short, sweet, and -- after consulting with an attorney -- perfectly legal.

Would the entire country freak out over such brazen self-dealing? No doubt. Would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al., care? Not a bit. After all, given the choice between a trial for high treason and murder (resulting in a possible death sentence) versus millions of people thinking badly of them (which 82 percent of the public already does), the answer is obvious. But though the public might rise up in horror, politicians on all sides would secretly breath a sigh of relief. Especially Democrats. In fact, it is my guess that Obama and virtually every Democrat in Congress is secretly praying for Bush to "self-pardon" himself. Not because they wish him to escape justice, but because they don't want the politically dangerous, nationally divisive, and ultimately thankless task of having to administer it. If Bush pardons himself, or gets Cheney to pardon him, he will let the Democrats off the hook, freeing them from the growing importuning of millions of Americans whose rage at Bush and Cheney will only grow greater as more and more insiders come forward to reveal the truth. My only question is -- why is no one even discussing this? Bush can Pardon Cheney then Cheney can pardon Bush

* Start Impeachment proceedings! That is the only way to keep Bush from getting away with this! AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Monday, November 24, 2008

Remember Bush knew it was most likely that Iraq would be divvied up between the Kurds, Sunni's, and Shiite, now Kurds get weapons from Bulgaria!


I have written about it for years but over a year ago I said this:
Many of us have said numerous times that Bush was advised before hand that if he attacked Iraq he would destabilize the middle east. He knew before he ignored all good advice that the neighbors would get involved and they are. He knew that it was most likely that Iraq would be divvied up between the Kurds, the Sunni's, and the Shiite and it will be. In the past I have written extensively the entire middle east would blow and then the entire world would be involved in war. I know that both Turkey and Iran are fighting Kurds that are looking for Autonomy but never really thought that a free Kurdistan would encompass areas of Iran and Turkey as well as Iraq. knowing the close American Kurdish relationship I really have to rethink what Bush's real goal is here after I discovered an old story. Tell me what you think!

Kurdistan Observer: A Free Kurdistan! Recent nuances and nudges in government policy as well as tacit support for the most obscene anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism by the ruling political party of Turkey ought to cause the United States to begin to rethink its comprehensive policy toward Asia in general and toward one non-Arab minority in Iraq in particular: the Kurds. What, today, is the most intractable political problem in Iraq? It is the very real political and religious aims of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of the nation. Since the inception of Operation Iraqi Freedom, President Bush has maintained that the unity of the nation of Iraq was non-negotiable. In politics and in war, however, nothing should be non-negotiable.

This sounds vaguely familiar but Iraq is not a nation in any real sense, it was rather three separate concentration camps each with differing degrees of oppression. The Sunnis, the smallest group in the economically and landlocked center of Iraq, had the most to gain by making peace quickly and joining a unity government. Coalition forces have supported the ungrateful Sunnis by opposing a partition of Iraq. Now President Bush should embrace such a division. This would divide Iraq into three separate nations: a relatively unimportant Bagdad Iraq of Sunnis, a Basra Iraq of Shiites who could govern themselves without the need for Iranian support, and an Mosul Iraq which would be the first true homeland for Kurds in many centuries, an oil rich area that is well able to defend itself and has shown the most gratitude to America of the three nations of Iraq.

Why has America shied away from this approach? The principal reason is that Kurds are a dispossessed people whose natural homeland stretches across much of the Middle East. A substantial number of Kurds live in Iran, which is as close to a mortal enemy of the United States as there is in the world today. American support for reclaiming those colonial possession of Teheran and the incorporation of those lands into Kurdistan would roughly double the area of the Iraqi Kurds. A significant, but smaller, number of Kurds live in Syria, an enemy of America and a supporter both of the Iraqi insurgency and of international terrorism. If the Baathist regime did not give up its Kurdish lands, then the Kurds, with American military support, should smash the Syrian Army and force as humiliating a peace treaty as possible on Damascus.

The majority of the thirty million or so Kurds, however, live in Turkey – almost one quarter of the population of Turkey. That, more than anything else, has stayed our hand so far. Kurdistan with the southeast quarter of Turkey, is a fairly large nation. Traditionally, Turkey has been an ally of America, but that has been changing fast and Turkish support for American policies has always been based entirely on cynical self-interest. We owe Turkey – neutral in World War Two and our enemy in World War One – nothing. Our support for Turkey costs us the goodwill of Greeks, Armenians and other European nations that suffered through centuries of Turkish oppression. It also has cost of much of the goodwill of Kurds, who would otherwise welcome the presence of a superpower that was not intolerant, not Arab, and sought nothing but friendly relations with it.

Another important reason for supporting a true Kurdistan is that the Kurds are a genuinely diverse people. Although they were forced to covert to Islam, today only about seventy percent of the Kurds are Moslem, and many of those only nominally, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians (or a faith much akin to that) and Bahai have lived within the long-persecuted Kurdish community with their first allegiance as Kurds, and there is no single branch of Islam that clearly dominates the Kurdish community. Kurdistan could then be a democracy with an Islamic majority that was genuinely inclusive of all faiths, both needing the support of all Kurds to survive (much like Israel) and also because of centuries of living largely underground, tolerant of all Kurds. There is little doubt that it would become an affluent nation as capable of defending itself as Israel is today, and that along with the establishment of a truly free and democratic Lebanon, would create three strong, free and prosperous democracies which would naturally become allies or at least friends.

The dismemberment of Iran, which would lose ten percent of its population, and the humiliation of Syria, which would be forced into a very precarious position, would be great peripheral benefits. The downside has always been the impact on Turkey, but a Turkey which continues to deny its Armenian holocaust and is rapidly moving toward denial of HaShoah as it embraces vicious anti-Semitism, should increasingly lose our concern about its interests. A free Kurdistan Part of the deal

Now this! Kurdish officials this fall took delivery of three planeloads of small arms and ammunition imported from Bulgaria, three U.S. military officials said, an acquisition that occurred outside the weapons procurement procedures of Iraq's central government. The large quantity of weapons and the timing of the shipment alarmed U.S. officials, who have grown concerned about the prospect of an armed confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and the government at a time when the Kurds are attempting to expand their control over parts of northern Iraq. The weapons arrived in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah in September on three C-130 cargo planes, according to the three officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. Kurdish officials declined to answer questions about the shipments but released the following statement: "The Kurdistan Regional Government continues to be on the forefront of the war on terrorism in Iraq. With that continued threat, nothing in the constitution prevents the KRG from obtaining defense materials for its regional defense."

Oil-rich area
Iraq's ethnic Kurds maintain an autonomous region that comprises three of the country's 18 provinces. In recent months, the Shiite-led central government in Baghdad, which includes some Kurds in prominent positions, has accused Kurdish leaders of attempting to expand their territory by deploying their militia, known as pesh merga, to areas south of the autonomous region. Among other things, the Kurds and Iraq's government are at odds over control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which lies outside the autonomous region, and over how Iraq's oil revenue ought to be distributed. Kurds get weapons from Bulgaria

I know under this scenario there would be no outlet for Kurdistan's oil but remember Bush thinks he will effect the changes he wants and disregards the rest of the worlds reaction. A free Kurdistan would be an Israeli and US ally, and a distribution of oil revenues is part of the known plan and I have to believe if nukes aren't used over there and I am afraid they will be, an avenue will be secured.
The way it looks right now with Pakistan exploding and we cannot allow those nukes in terrorists hands plus Bush's desire to attack Iran which would draw China and Russia in against us, it is increasingly looking nuclear and no one will be able to use the oil and the issue will not end in the middle east it will only start there. once we are out of the way Iraq will turn on itself as expected and it will spread throughout the entire middle east as any idiot knew from the beginning. Bush knew it and that is why we will be in the middle of this seemingly forever regardless of who our President is!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma
http://anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com

Sunday, November 23, 2008

No economic leadership criticism as stock market soars because of Obama's leadership and he pledges 2.5 million new jobs rebuilding America!

Obama economic team set to establish 2.5 million new jobs by 2011, sounds like an FDR new Deal to me!



Undoing everything Bush has done for eight years Obama pledges to get rid of Bush's America and rebuild ours!

I can't believe it! New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner is "on track" to be offered the treasury secretary post, two sources close to the transition team said Friday. As a result of this wise decision The Dow Jones industrial index staged a late rally after traders heard news of Geithner's possible appointment, rising by almost 500 points shortly before the market's closing time. sounds like leadership to me

Not only that but U.S. President-elect Barack Obama says he has directed his economic team to develop a plan to create 2.5 million jobs by January of 2011. Mr. Obama says details of his Economic Recovery Plan are still being worked out, but he vows to sign it soon after taking office on January 20.
The incoming president says the two-year action plan will spur job creation and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. During Saturday's weekly Democratic radio address, Mr. Obama says his plan will put people back to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, modernizing schools, and developing new energy technologies. President-elect Obama says the economic turmoil of the last week proves swift action is needed to restore the nation's financial health. He acknowledged passing the plan will not be easy, and asked for support and input from both Republicans and Democrats. Obama to create 2.5 million jobs by 2011

Despite all this, analysts lump Obama in with Bush saying no one is taking a lead in righting the economy! What do they expect him to do? He is not the President yet! He can not interject himself into the Current Presidency though I wish he could! CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger said Obama and his team are probably trying to gauge the totality of the situation, and many internal questions also have to be answered: Do we need someone younger? Would a former treasury secretary bring vital experience? Does it matter if the secretary has ties to Sen. Hillary Clinton? "I think they're having these kinds of conversations, and so I would expect, though, that we're going to see something on the economic team in early December, if not sooner," she said.

Anyway Borger said she thinks Obama is already working behind the scenes through his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, and she doesn't think the Democrats would have postponed their decision on a Big Three bailout without checking with Obama. "you bet he is" Borger said she expects a "big push" from Democrats to find a way to save Detroit when the lame-duck Congress reconvenes in December, and Emanuel and Obama will be a part of it. "But honestly, you can't expect a president-elect, who hasn't even been sworn in, to use all of his political capital -- and, by the way, he's going to have a lot -- before he takes office," she said. There's a lot of risk involved in Obama pushing his economic agenda before he takes office, and it would be unwise to publicly state what the Bush administration should do, said Stephen Hayes, a conservative columnist and CNN contributor. "Politically, he wants to stay as far away from this as he can," Hayes said. "I think it's smart of him to say, 'We have one president at a time; I have got my four years.' " Analysts Analyzing nothing only to create work

Do not worry about Obama he will not disappoint. Give him a chance! He will give us back our America if given the chance but it will not happen over night and will be all the slower as Republicans endeavor to block his efforts. Bear with him Obama will not disappoint!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Bush's Afghanistan Poppy crop being replaced by Pomegranates!

Many of you know that Afghanistan's poppy crop was essentially eradicated by the Taliban until Bush attacked them for not letting him put a pipeline through Afghanistan. As a result of the attack Afghanistan now is the worlds predominate grower and alone produces more than the entire world can consume! This made Bush the Taliban's premier money source!

Now This ancient land is telling the world that it has a trendy, new replacement for its dreaded poppy crop: sweet, juicy pomegranates. The country will stamp a logo on all boxes of the pomegranate for export: a drawing of the sliced, red fruit with seeds spilling out and a label that announces, "Anar, Afghan Pomegranate."

Anar is the word for pomegranate in various regional languages. Afghanistan officials hope the Western-style sales savvy will raise the pomegranate's cachet and provide its farmers with a lucrative alternative to growing opium poppies. It's the latest step in a $12 million, U.S.-funded initiative to modernize and expand Afghanistan's pomegranate industry, which has long depended on domestic sales and small-scale exports to nearby countries. Even these exports have been severely hit by years of border fighting.

Even though the Afghan pomegranate is considered one of the best in the world, it has been very much a local delicacy. The fruit is about the size of an apple, with a thick, reddish skin and hundreds of seeds embedded in tough, white pulp. This time of year, the red seed casings are consumed everywhere in Kabul — as juice, spooned straight from the fruit, or piled on a tray and sold by the scoop to picnickers in parks

Source of antioxidants: Pomegranates are riding a wave of popularity in Europe and the United States, where they are celebrated for their high levels of antioxidants, which protect cells from damage by compounds called free radicals. U.S. domestic supply comes largely from California's San Joaquin Valley, augmented by imports from Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, Greece and Mexico.

Last year, Afghanistan exported its first pomegranates to outlets of the French chain Carrefour in Dubai. The fruit, larger and redder than many pomegranates imported from Turkey or North Africa, was a hit. Carrefour quickly placed orders for all its Middle East stores, according to U.S. funders and Afghan officials."

They found out that Anar from Afghanistan is probably the best tasting. It's sweet; it's juicy," Afghanistan Agriculture Minister Mohammad Asif Rahimi said at the launch ceremony at a Kabul hotel Wednesday. Afghanistan's best export — agricultural or otherwise — is opium. It produced 8,200 tons of the drug in 2007, up 34 percent from the previous year. Though opium production is expected to drop back this year, Afghanistan will remain the world's largest producer of the crop by far. Hopefully Pomegranates will replace Opium

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

The lie we are living was expounded by Bush for oil, JFK was assassinated after he threatened to out it!


The lie we are living was expounded by Bush for oil, JFK was assassinated after he threatened to out it, Please read, It is all old documented and undeniable!Today is the 45th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination so I feel this is the perfect time to once again post on the lie we are living as declaring he was going to do so is what got him assassinated. Plus look at the lie we are living under Bush as 9//11, Iraq, Afghanistan, problems with Russia, all of it is a lie instigated and all about oil!

A scant percentage of Americans know that ten days before President Kennedy was assassinated, he made a speech at Columbia University, during which he made the following statement: "The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy
May 29, 1917 - November 22, 1963

I know just another coincidence! Also We Do Not Have Clean Hands In Afghanistan By Karl W B Schwarz KarlSchwarz2008: One of the things most noticeable to me since 1963 is how the Office of the President of the United States has been used to create and push bogus policy on bogus facts. History has shown that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the Vietnam war was staged by the United States. I have repeatedly seen this nation invent enemies or even arm enemies to create a war in the future for massive defense spending initiatives. I have also seen them implement policies based on lies just so the wealthy elite can make a lot of money, stained with the blood of dead American soldiers. Yes, they also use policy by gun point to steal what belongs to others and then hold themselves up high as Great Americans when they are mere thieves. Knowing what I know about Washington, D.C. (my office was there from 1989 to 1996), when I see our government act I look behind the scenes for what the real motives were.

Afghanistan-and why our President ordered our military to invade it-is just such a instance of bogus policy based on outright lies. I have been following this matter since 1999, well before the attacks of 9-11, due to someone I met in 1999. That person gave me information regarding a lawsuit in Texas and I followed it because I have been concerned for many years about the energy policies and foreign policies of this Republic. What you are about to read below is not my word against George W. Bush; it is a matter of public record in our U.S. Courts.

The military training for the invasion of Afghanistan started less then sixty (60) days after Bush was sworn into office, and waiting only for 9-11 to happen to justify the invasion. I also suspect that the drafting of the Patriot Act and the formation of Homeland Security started at about the same time. If I were in a position to appoint the Real 9-11 Commission, it would start with four energy companies that have electrical plants in Pakistan, all attendees of the Cheney Energy Task Force and the list of Foreign and American names found by Sibel D. Edmonds. In short, I would see to it that the investigation started off with those that stood to benefit the most by attacking Afghanistan and taking over that pipeline and the list of names found by Sibel Edmonds to determine if they were the real perpetrators of 9-11 to put such policies into action. Our government has in the past, and is right now, suppressing the truth across the board regarding a wide range of matters that affect the lives of all of us.

What you are about to read (if for the first time) was not heard from the U.S. government or major media. It is time all Americans stand up and demand straight answers to straight questions about the conduct of certain people in this Republic.
Our freedoms and civil liberties-and effectively the power of our Constitution-have been altered because of 9-11 and the 9-11 Commission that was suborned by the Bush Administration and Congress. They have even covered up the Cheney Energy Task Force, in which I suspect that it was discussed that the landlocked oil deals in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would not be landlocked much longer, since Cheney and Bush intended to take control of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, or TAP as it is called, with military force.

The TAP was under contract from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, through Pakistan to the ocean with an Argentine oil company named Bridas Corporation and its parent Bridas S.A.P.I.C. On September 9, 2003, Bridas prevailed at the Fifth Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals on a $500 million interference of contract lawsuit. That lawsuit was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and on March 22, 2004 the high court refused to hear the case or consider reversing the Fifth Circuit decision. See US Supreme Court, case 03-1018, State Concern Turkmenneft v. Bridas S.A.P.I.C., et al. day one all about oil

Bridas Corporation signed contracts with Turkmenistan in 1992 and 1993, long before our oil companies were welcome in these former Soviet satellites. Suddenly, after our presence started there, the Turkmenistan government issued on order blocking Bridas from exporting the oil and gas they had found from Turkmenistan. That was after Bridas had the foresight to start laying the groundwork for the pipeline across Afghanistan to get that oil to markets around the world. Bridas signed the agreement with the Taliban in 1996 and in 1997 a full court press was put on Pakistan and Afghanistan to get the deal into U.S. hands. They cut off the north end of that pipeline (Turkmenistan) and then the south end of that pipeline (Pakistan) and isolated the remaining element to Afghanistan / Taliban / Bridas Corporation.

The Bush Administration does not want any American knowing the truth about what happened in Afghanistan or that we breached a commercial contract with military force to take over a deal that was denied to US oil companies, because there was already a deal in place. Under the Clinton Administration they upended the Pakistan government to cut off that part of the Bridas Corporation deal. Under the Clinton Administration, they compelled Turkmenistan to breach its agreements with Bridas, hence the judgment award of $500 million for interference of contract. Clinton does not want you to know what actions were taken under his administration, and there were many.

The only remaining obstacle on 9-11 was the remaining agreement between the Taliban and Bridas Corporation. The Bush Administration, Congress, many in our major media, and even the 9-11 Commission and Cheney Energy Task Force all know about Bridas Corporation because that Argentine oil and gas company was standing in the way of our US oil companies and UK oil companies. The Caspian Basin oil is landlocked and there are only so many ways to get that oil out of the ground, to the ocean ports and into your gas tanks or home heating oil tanks.

There is the direct route from Turkmenistan across Iran to the ocean, but that is not politically popular since the overthrow of the Shah of Iran many years ago. There is: 1.) the route across the Caspian Sea westward, which is extremely costly; and through Azerbaijan through Turkey to the Mediterranean; and 2.) from Turkmenistan through Georgia to the Black Sea; and 3.) through the Ukraine to Europe; and 4.) the Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the ocean. Until one of those solutions was in place, the holes being drilled into the ground by British Petroleum, Chevron, Exxon and others could not go anywhere and could not produce revenues for those companies. A route northward through Russia would put US oil companies at risk to changes in Russian politics and the Eastward route through China was not deemed secure enough since China is soon to become the second largest user of petroleum in the world after the United States.

In short, the people that were in the Cheney Energy Task Force were the same people that stood to gain if we attacked Afghanistan and took the deal away from the Taliban and Bridas Corporation. They had spent years getting the deals, invested billions into drilling and could not turn a dollar of cash flow or profits until that pipeline was under US control. That is Economics 101 and when one considers that there is over $12 trillion in oil at stake and over $3 trillion in natural gas, that also might be Prime Motive Number 1 for 9-11. They probably could have joint ventured that pipeline with Bridas, but then Argentina would have been raking in billions in hard cash and not hanging on for dear life as they are now.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security advisor to Carter and Foreign Intelligence advisor to Reagan even wrote a book titled The Grand Chessboard , American Primacy and It's Geostrategic Imperatives about the grand adventure to take over the Caspian Basin and its mother lode of oil and natural gas. In case you are wondering, Mr. Brzezinski, as well as John Sununu, Nicholas Brady, James Baker, III and many other former Reagan and Bush I Administration people are also involved and have been for years. Brezinski's involvement

If you are like me, you see no "geostrategic imperative" about sending your sons or daughters, wife or husband, off to some far away place just so a few elite insiders can make billions in oil in a deal they have conspired to take over for at least the past three presidential administrations. That is exactly what they have done and exactly why they suppressed the investigations into 9-11 and the Cheney Energy Task Force. Consider for a moment Condoleezza Rice, who used to sit on the Chevron Board of Directors at that exact time that Chevron made the decision to invest billions into oil and gas production in the Caspian Basin and without any way in sight to get that oil to ocean ports. You cannot convince me that Ms. Rice was unaware of Bridas Corporation and that they had beat US and UK oil companies to the punch way back in 1992 and 1993 when they starting signing oil and gas deals with the Turkmenistan government. You cannot convince me that Ms Rice was not completely aware of the geostrategic imperative of that oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

Both the Bush and Clinton Administrations do not want Americans to know that Bridas was interfered with in Turkmenistan and Pakistan to isolate both the Taliban and Bridas Corporation regarding the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, a pipeline that we now control through use of military force in Afghanistan. This raises serious questions about our true motives in attacking Afghanistan following 9-11. We deserve to know why the Bush Administration does not want Americans to know that Bridas Corporation and their parent Bridas SAPIC, prevailed in our Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding interference of contract in Turkmenistan.

It is not my word against Bush and Clinton. The historical facts and U.S. court records say all that needs to be said about the possible taint on our real motives of heading towards Afghanistan. If our government's motives for invading Afghanistan were a lie, just like Iraq has been, the matter needs to be looked into and charges brought against certain people. Just consider that Afghanistan and our actions there are directly tied to 9-11. I have met very few people that think the 9-11 Commission was doing its job rather than covering it up. Did you know about Bridas Corporation? For those Americans that think Clinton ­ Gore had nothing to do with the lead up to invading Afghanistan over a pipeline we could not otherwise get control of, take a look at what Max Boot, senior fellow Council for Foreign Relations had to say in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor: The Neocons tried for years to get Clinton to act and felt they could get Gore to act in the event he won in 2000.

"What type of foreign policy/security strategy would an Al Gore administration have set after Sept. 11? How different would it have been from the one that emerged from the Bush White House? I think it's likely that the Gore administration would have invaded Afghanistan after 9/11. I think it's unlikely they would have invaded Iraq. That's the big difference." Gore was under the control of the same special interests that control George W. Bush.

They had been planning the takeover of that Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline for many years. If you understand that the same wealthy élite special interests own both parties in D.C., you understand the gravity of the problem. Bridas started signing contracts with Turkmenistan, the north end of that pipeline in 1992 and 1993. That is a provable and documented fact and it was also long before any of our oil companies were welcome in the region. Bridas also saw the strategic importance of having a way to get the landlocked oil and gas to the ocean and the shortest route to do that is from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan to an ocean port. Read the rest, the lie we are living is not pretty

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Friday, November 21, 2008

The promisor of change Obama continues to get criticized for picking insiders, Just remember who the Decider of change from the inside is!


I see many reports on the fact that Obama promised change and it looks like he is filling his cabinet with Hawks and insiders so I feel it is time for another reminder that he is the purveyor of change and the new Decider but it is imperative that he staff himself with people in the know! This is his chance to shine and he will! President-elect Barack Obama is poised to restore the United States' image in the international community, but experts say the president-elect must show the world that his actions will live up to his rhetoric. Receiving a warm welcome is not the same as maintaining one, and Obama has a lot of work to do to improve the U.S. brand.

America's image has declined in nearly every region of the world in recent years, but Obama's victory "enables the United States to start again with a clean slate," according to John Quelch, the senior associate dean at Harvard Business School. "Americans can actually go to dinner parties and cocktail receptions around the world today and not have to apologize for the United States the way they have had to do the last several years," he said. "The election has made life a little bit easier for Americans living and traveling abroad to hold their head up high again."

The United States' tarnished reputation has been fueled by a combination of factors, including opposition to U.S. policies like the invasion of Iraq and alleged torture and abuse of prisoners, the perception of hypocrisy, unilateralism, lack of contact with Americans and the perceived war on Islam, according to a congressional report released last summer. Obama represents a "clean break" from the past, and his election is the first big step toward change, said Dick Martin, author of "Rebuilding Brand America." "Changing America's standing in the world was going to be the work of a generation, and it would have to start with some kind of grand gesture that demonstrated that things were changing. His election in itself is that kind of grand gesture," he said. Obama set to rebrand America

Obama will rebrand America and change the world for the good but he needs insiders "people in the know" to do it! President-elect Barack Obama's top choice to lead the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, two Democratic sources confirmed to FOX News on Thursday. According to other reports, Obama has also selected billionaire Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker as commerce secretary. She was his campaign finance chairwoman, and is credited with Obama's breaking all political fundraising records. two more well thought picks

With that said Obama as you know is being criticized for picking insiders as he should! President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts. Obama is enlisting former Senate leader Tom Daschle as his health secretary. Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed more likely than ever to be his secretary of state. Clinton is deciding whether to take that post as America's top diplomat, her associates said Wednesday. Obama is ready to announce that his his attorney general will be Eric Holder, the Justice Department's No. 2 when Clinton's husband was president. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff , is another veteran of the Clinton White House.

Republicans sniped at what they saw as an unwelcome trend. Alex Conant, spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Barack Obama is filling his administration with longtime Washington insiders." Obama wrongly criticized for picking insiders

* I remind unbiased non Partisan thinkers to remember you must staff yourself with people that know the system. A good leader surrounds themselves with good people! Just remember who the Decider is. The promisor of change! Barack Obama!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Pakistan more integral to the so called war on terror, Latest events and remember how complicated and convoluted this part of the lie we're living is


Karzai offers peace to Taliban and security for Mullah Omar!



Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents rejected an offer of talks from Kabul yesterday and threatened for the first time to strike a target in the West. Washington also shot down the proposal by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and said it wouldn't support such an initiative. The Taliban said it wouldn't come to the negotiating table until all foreign troops left Afghanistan. It also vowed in a videotape to strike in Paris unless coalition member France withdrew its forces. Karzai on Sunday offered to hold direct negotiations with the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and to guarantee him safe passage. Anticipating U.S. disapproval, he challenged the U.S.-led international coalition to "remove me, or leave, if they disagree."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack slapped down the idea yesterday. "One can't imagine the circumstances where you have the senior leadership of the Taliban - that there would be any safe passage with respect to U.S. forces," McCormack said. There have been no reported sightings of Omar, a close associate of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The deputy leader of the Taliban, who calls himself Mullah Brother, scorned the proposal yesterday. "As long as foreign occupiers remain in Afghanistan, we aren't ready for talks because they hold the power and talks won't bear fruit," he told Reuters news agency by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location. Taliban will not talk to Karzai

Meanwhile A suspected U.S. missile strike hit a village well inside Pakistani territory Wednesday, killing at least six alleged militants in an attack that could raise tensions between the anti-terror allies, officials said. The missile struck a house in Bannu district, which is a part of northwest Pakistan where al-Qaida and Taliban have found refuge, but does not directly border Afghanistan. Two Pakistani intelligence officials said their agents reported foreigners from Central Asia were among the dead. The intelligence officials spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media.

The United States is blamed in around 20 missile strikes in northwest Pakistan since mid-August against al-Qaida and Taliban militants blamed for rising attacks against foreign forces in Afghanistan. The missiles are believed fired from unmanned planes launched in Afghanistan, where some 32,000 U.S. troops are fighting the Taliban and other militants. Pakistan has loudly protested the strikes as violations of its sovereignty, but the attacks have not stopped, leading to speculation by some analysts the two nations have a secret deal on the attacks. Bannu in 'settled area'All the attacks since August have been in villages in north and South Waziristan, two semiautonomous tribal regions where the government has a very limited presence. 20 missile strikes by US in Pakistan since...

We have been put in a hard position largely by Bush and his FU attitude and bullying! That is where Bin Laden and Omar are supposed to be and remember Obama's promise to go after them there! The majority of the Pakistani people are against us already and always will be because of the anti American religious fervor fostered in Madrasas. It is no secret and I am sure you know by now that Pakistan's ISI was paying some of the original 9/11 attackers and with the complicit CIA allowed and fostered Bin Laden's escape from Tora Bora, incidentally which the CIA built during the Soviet invasion.

There is so much and it is so convoluted! I have written on it extensively in the past in relation to the lie we are living in the United States that you can query anything on this site http://www.anaverageamericanpatriot.blogspot.com and find information on it! Or let me know and I will get you whatever you are looking for. Suffice it to say Pakistan hates us and I have been told by a writer /Politician in India that if we attack Pakistan they will unite to repel the infidel. Us! There is a convoluted relationship with Russia aiding them militarily as well.

It is also no secret we have 4 or 5 aircraft carrier attack Groups in the Gulf at any given time capable of attacking Pakistan, Syria, Iran or anywhere else at any given moment. Russia also has capabilities there ready to defend against us if we do something against there interest. This is not any easy situation Bush has set in motion for Obama and the world. Then there is the Bankrupting of America Bush has purposely allowed and the timing is no coincidence! Obama is in a tough position but will send American troops back into Pakistan on the ground if need be as they already have been. They have also already attacked in Syria which is also old news. The world must exercise great restraint Because of what Bush instigated and allow the righteous "peace loving future desiring Obama to work his magic. He is not the war mongering Decider. He will do the right thing for the US and the entire world if given the chance. Take care and stay in touch!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Vetting Bill and Hillary! Bill Clinton's Foreign Affairs Could Cost Hillary Cabinet Post ? Why does it matter what Bill does as long as he is honest?

Vetting Bill and Hillary!



Could former President Bill Clinton's charitable affairs cost Hillary Clinton the secretary of state job in Barack Obama's administration? That's what insiders are wondering after reports that the former president's financial and foreign entanglements could hurt the New York senator in her bid for a Cabinet post. Politico.com reported Monday that Democrats "are becoming exasperated" by Bill Clinton's response to requests for information about his finances. "The sense among the no-drama Obama world is: This is well on its way to winning best Oscar for drama," an unnamed Democrat told Politico.com.

Of worry, Politico.com said, is whether Clinton's charity would create a conflict of interest with foreign governments. The New York Times reported Sunday that lawyers from the Obama camp were looking into the former president's dealings with foreign governments and pharmaceutical companies. "Me I do not get it?" "I think certainly she's been vetted, he's been vetted; but let's remember it's her who's up for this appointment, not Bill Clinton," Brad Blakeman, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, told FOX News. "I think they cleaned a lot up before she decided to run for president. "Certainly his activities going forward, if she is the secretary of state, would be curtailed, but I can't see any reason why Hillary Clinton would not be nominated by this president and certainly confirmed by a Democratic Senate," Blakeman said.

Bill Clinton, addressing a symposium at the National Bank of Kuwait on Sunday, spoke about the possibility of having his wife in the new administration. "If [Obama] decided to ask her and they did it together, I think she'll be really great as a secretary of state," Clinton said, according to an Agency France-Pressed report. "She worked very hard for his election after the primary fight with him, and so did I, and we were very glad that he won and we have a lot of confidence that he can do a good job," Clinton said. "But she didn't do what she did with the hope or expectation of getting any kind of job offer, much less having this discussed." Clinton said he didn't know if his wife was offered the post. News of a possible Secretary of State Clinton drew praise from both sides of the aisle. Former White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis told FOXNews.com that "she is strong and firm in her convictions and a great team player -- but she is also a great listener. "Most important, she has the rare ability to walk in other people's shoes and see the world through their eyes," Davis wrote Sunday on the FOX Forum. "That, to me, is an important quality in a secretary of state after eight years of this administration." Both Hillary Clinton, Obama's fiercest rival for the presidential nomination, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who also ran for the White House this year, were interviewed by Obama in Chicago last week for the post, according to Democratic officials. Could bill cost Hillary Secretary Of State Post?

Politico says the vetting of Bill Clinton is not going well. Obama "aides are becoming exasperated by the Clinton camp’s pokey response to demands for extensive information about former President Bill Clinton’s finances, according to numerous Democrats involved in the process. ‘The sense among the no-drama Obama world is: This is well on its way to winning best Oscar for drama,’ said one well-connected Democratic official.”

More: Democratic officials make it sound as if the job has been all but offered to Hillary Clinton. But the ball is in her court to show that the former president’s many foreign and financial entanglements would not pose huge conflicts of interest if she were the nation’s chief diplomat, the officials said." Channeling First Read, the Boston Globe notes the would-be irony if Obama were to pick Clinton to be secretary of state. "He would be giving her oversight of an area where the two former rivals diverged sharply during their prolonged primary battle: foreign policy… It is the one arena in which Obama and Clinton articulated significantly different visions." Bill's vetting not going well

As Therese Rein, wife of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, had to give up aspects of her business, the former US president Bill Clinton may have to cease some of his activities for his wife, Hillary, to become the nation's top diplomat. "There is a lot of momentum in the direction of this happening," said James Carville, a friend of the Clintons. Mr. Carville said the former president's work - past and future - was a complicating matter. "She's not married to Todd Palin," he said, referring to the husband of the Republican vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.

Barack Obama's transitional campaign office has confirmed it is vetting Mr. Clinton's business affairs, a sign that Senator Clinton is being considered for the job and, equally, that she is interested in taking it. As part of that process Mr. Clinton might have to disclose the names of contributors to the Clinton Global Fund, which funded his presidential library and work to combat AIDS around the world. The donor list has never been made public, but Mr. Clinton had promised to disclose it if Senator Clinton became president. Since leaving office eight years ago Mr. Clinton has reportedly raised more than $US500 million for the foundation, tapping foreign governments and reportedly soliciting funds from international business figures whom he helped introduce to less savory leaders around the world, such as the president of Kazakhstan, who granted uranium mining rights to one of Mr. Clinton's associates soon after meeting Mr. Clinton.

But the more pressing issues will be Mr. Clinton's other activities. For instance, would he be required to give up making speeches, to avoid the risk of contradicting his wife and US policy? Could he continue his AIDS and climate change work while avoiding potential conflicts with the Obama government? "She really has to sit down with her husband and work through: where does this leave him," said David Gergen, a political analyst for CNN who worked at the White House during the Clinton period. "After all, he's very deeply involved in the Clinton Global Initiative, doing good around the world. Could he continue to do that?" Bill may have to give up for Hillary to get in

* I understand the nuances of Politics but I do not understand why what Bill does matters to Obama and if it differs from what the White House wants or is doing as long as it is honest and above board? Even Carville a staunch Democrat has a wife that is a Republican and of course does not agree with him and that does not affect his views or actions though I do understand he is not in Obama's cabinet! I understand what Carville says but do not see why it matters whether you are talking Todd Palin or Bill Clinton as long as there is honesty as I do not see coming from Todd Palin regardless of who he is!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Living a lie: Against a worsening manufactured financial crisis that is just beginning another reminder from Global Research!


The country is sinking deeper into an economic hole, and it's likely to stay there for a while. That's part of the latest outlook from forecasters in a survey to be released Monday by the National Association for Business Economics, also known as NABE. Approximately 96 percent of the economists polled believe a recession has started, and nearly three-fourths think it could persist beyond the first quarter of 2009. Under one definition, a recession happens when the economy shrinks for two quarters in a row. The economy contracted 0.3 percent in the third quarter as consumers cut back sharply on spending, the government reported last month. It was the worst showing since 2001, when the country was last in a recession.

NABE economists, among other experts, predict activity will continue to contract in the final quarter of this year and the first quarter of next year as weary consumers hunker down further under the stresses of rising unemployment, shrinking nest eggs and falling home values. "Business economists became decidedly more negative on the economic outlook for the next several quarters as a result of the intensification of credit market stresses and evidence of spillover to the real economy," said NABE president Chris Varvares, president of Macroeconomic Advisers. NABE economists are now forecasting the economy to shrink at a 2.6 percent pace in the final quarter of this year and then at a 1.3 percent pace in the first three months of 2009. The new projections marked downgrades from the association's previous survey, which called for growth of 0.1 percent in the final quarter of this year and 1.3 percent in the following quarter.

Weakest economy since 2001: For all of 2008, the association's economists are predicting the economy's growth will slow to 1.4 percent, down from 2 percent in 2007. If the new, lower projection proves correct, it would mark the weakest performance since 2001. The picture could turn worse in 2009. The NABE economists are projecting the economy will jolt into reverse, shrinking by 0.2 percent for all of next year. If that happens, it would be the worst showing since 1991, when the country was starting to pull out of a recession. With the economy losing traction, the nation's unemployment rate will climb to 7.5 percent by the end of next year, the economists predict. Other analysts think it could rise to 8 percent then, It could hit 10 percent or higher if a U.S. auto company were to go under. Worse economy since 2001 and it is just beginning

I am sick of hearing the Great Depression can not be repeated! This was manufactured by greenspan under Bush, is just beginning, and will be much worse. As I keep saying the timing is no coincidence! Global Research, November 15, 2008:
The financial crisis is deepening, with the risk of seriously disrupting the system of international payments. This crisis is far more serious than the Great Depression. All major sectors of the global economy are affected. Recent reports suggest that the system of Letters of Credit as well as international shipping, which constitute the lifeline of the international trading system, are potentially in jeopardy. The proposed bank "bailout" under the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is not a "solution" to the crisis but the "cause" of further collapse. The "bailout" contributes to a further process of destabilization of the financial architecture. It transfers large amounts of public money, at taxpayers expense, into the hands of private financiers. It leads to a spiraling public debt and an unprecedented centralization of banking power. Moreover, the bailout money is used by the financial giants to secure corporate acquisitions both in the financial sector and the real economy. In turn, this unprecedented concentration of financial power spearheads entire sectors of industry and the services economy into bankruptcy, leading to the layoff of tens of thousands of workers. The upper spheres of Wall Street overshadow the real economy. The accumulation of large amounts of money wealth by a handful of Wall Street conglomerates and their associated hedge funds is reinvested in the acquisition of real assets. Paper wealth is transformed into the ownership and control of real productive assets, including industry, services, natural resources, infrastructure, etc.

Collapse of Consumer Demand: The real economy is in crisis. The resulting increase in unemployment is conducive to a dramatic decline in consumer spending which in turn backlashes on the levels of production of goods and services. Exacerbated by neoliberal macro-economic policy, this downward spiral is cumulative, ultimately leading to an oversupply of commodities. Business enterprises cannot sell their products, because workers have been laid off. Consumers, namely working people, have been deprived of the purchasing power required to fuel economic growth. With their meager earnings, they cannot afford to acquire the goods produced. Overproduction Triggers a String of Bankruptcies: Inventories of unsold goods pile up. Eventually, production collapses; the supply of commodities declines through the closing down of production facilities, including manufacturing assembly plants. In the process of plant closure, more workers become unemployed. Thousands of bankrupt firms are driven off the economic landscape, leading to a slump in production. Mass poverty and a Worldwide decline in living standards is the result of low wages and mass unemployment. It is the outcome of a preexisting global cheap labor economy, largely characterized by low wage assembly plants in Third World countries. The current crisis extends the geographic contours of the cheap labor economy, leading to the impoverishment of large sectors of the population in the so-called developed countries (including the middle classes).

In the US, Canada and Western Europe, the entire industrial sector is potentially in jeopardy. We are dealing with a long-term process of economic and financial restructuring. In its earlier phase, starting in the 1980s during the Reagan Thatcher era, local and regional level enterprises, family farms and small businesses were displaced and destroyed. In turn, the merger and acquisition boom of the 1990s led to the concurrent consolidation of large corporate entities both in the real economy as well as in banking and financial services. In recent developments, however, the concentration of bank power has been at the expense of big business. What is distinct in this particular phase of the crisis, is the ability of the financial giants (through their overriding control over credit) not only to create havoc in the production of goods and services, but also to undermine and destroy large corporate entities of the real economy. Bankruptcies are occurring in all major sectors of activity: Manufacturing, telecoms, consumer retail outlets, shopping malls, airlines, hotels and tourism, not to mention real estate and the construction industry, victims of the subprime mortgage meltdown. General Motors has confirmed that "it could run out of cash within a few months, which could prompt one of the biggest bankruptcy filings in U.S. history". (USNews.com, November 11, 2008)) In turn this would backlash on a string of related industries. Estimates of job losses in the US auto industry range from 30,000 to as much as 100,000.(Ibid This is just beginning1 Check the industries and how wide this will be

*As I keep saying relax, be prepared, stay together, hunker down, and ride this out. We can do it!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaverageopatriot.com

Monday, November 17, 2008

The world is showing its Love and hopes for President Obama: Cooperation! Agreement! Deals! Approvals! But what will change?

Bush and Summit leaders agree to cooperate better on Bush's created world financial collapse!



Moscow aims to restore trust with US!



World leaders pledge to revive Global economy Bush destroyed

You have to wonder how this will ham string Obama in Iraq and the timing of an An agreement to keep American troops in Iraq 3 more years

More Obama influence: An admission by Pakistan of don't ask don't tell about unmanned attacks in Pakistan by the US as long as there are no ground assaults! A senior Pakistani official said that although the attacks contribute to widespread public anger in Pakistan, anti-Americanism there is closely associated with President Bush. Citing a potentially more favorable popular view of President-elect Barack Obama, he said that "maybe with a new administration, public opinion will be more pro-American and we can start acknowledging" more cooperation. attack agreement admitted by Pakistan in anticipation of President Obama

What I mentioned about Russia when Obama was elected seems to be bearing fruit! Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said he hopes US President-elect Barack Obama will help rebuild the strained relations between their two countries. In a speech in Washington, Mr Medvedev said that a new US administration might be able to address what he described as a lack of "necessary mutual trust". He said he wanted to meet Mr Obama soon after he takes office in January.

As I mentioned: The Russian leader also indicated that Russia might accept a compromise over a planned US missile shield in Europe. Two weeks ago, he said Moscow would neutralize the possible deployment by the US of a tracking radar in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland by stationing short-range missiles in its western enclave of Kaliningrad. Of course Bush lies as The US insists the shield is incapable of threatening Russia and is designed solely to guard against missile attacks by "rogue states".

'Encouraged by signals' In his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations following the G20 summit on the global economic crisis in Washington, President Medvedev welcomed the election of Mr Obama on 4 November. "US-Russian relations lack the necessary mutual trust. We pin such hopes on the arrival of the new US administration," he explained. Mr Medvedev said Russia had a strong "strategic partnership" with China, "a very good, full-fledged, friendly exchange". "Of course I want to have the same kind of relations with the United States," he went on. Mr Medvedev said he had been encouraged by signs that Mr Obama was less enthusiastic about the shield than President George W Bush. amidst visit to Cuba Russia too pins hopes on Obama

* President elect Obama is already making a positive difference in the world and as time goes on he will not disappoint. The world must just show restraint and not respond to Bush's instigation until he is hopefully gone and we have In Obama a listener and thinker at the Helm and not just a close minded decider as in Bush!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com

Sunday, November 16, 2008

I am very concerned with undoing everything Bush has done to create his new Disorder more importantly I want him held accountable! Please help!


President-elect Barack Obama will have limited authority to overturn federal regulations approved in the waning months of the Bush administration. But a little-used power offers the new Democratic Congress an early test of how aggressively lawmakers might unravel such rules pushed through by Republicans. Under a special fast-track authority, Congress could repeal current rules from as far back as May. Many are related to the environment and health. Aside from congressional action, such changes involve a laborious rule-making process that can take years.

The Congressional Review Act of 1996, used just once in the past 12 years, could become a sweeping tool for Democrats against late regulations from the Bush presidency. Environmental activists are compiling lists of regulations they believe Congress should target, including ones covering water pollution at huge farms, pollution control equipment at older power plants and hazardous waste restrictions. "One of the things to watch is whether there are actions in Congress that reflect a new philosophy that is a different direction than the Bush administration, which has been a pro-industry approach to governing," said Rick Melberth, an expert at the Washington-based OMB Watch, a nonprofit watchdog organization.

Bristling over suggestions the Bush administration was too cozy with industry, the White House has defended its new regulations and cites requirements for increased auto fuel efficiency as "maybe not particularly welcomed by members of the business community." "We're trying to do them in the best way that protects the interests of the nation," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said at a news briefing. For pending rules, Obama could freeze them as soon as he takes office in January. Separately, Obama could use his presidential authority to reverse executive orders by Bush on policies such as stem cell research and the gag rule on overseas family planning groups that might advise women on abortion. "There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Obama's transition chief, John Podesta, said on "Fox News Sunday" last weekend. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set." But once regulations are in effect, only Congress could overturn them, outside the cumbersome rule-making process. fast track to kill Bush's rule

Just as important is making sure he is held accountable for his destruction and can not pardon himself and his cronies! From Democrats.com: As we celebrate our new President-elect and all the changes he will bring to our nation, we must not turn a blind eye to the final actions of George Bush. Incredibly, Washington is already buzzing with Bush's plans to block all investigations of his crimes and even to pardon everyone involved - including Cheney and himself. Chris Matthews is even counting down the days .

Does Bush have the power to pardon everyone in his administration? Yes. Will he abuse that power to stay out of jail? Only if we let him. "you bet he will if he can find a way" We must create a groundswell of opposition to any pardons by George Bush, so he understands that he will be impeached and prosecuted for issuing corrupt pardons.

Please help us launch a massive movement against pardons by signing our petition to Congress and telling your friends:
We will announce additional plans to stop Bush's pardons in the coming days Read more about our efforts and join our discussion here:
read more

* We must undo all bush's damage and prevent him from getting away with it, Please help!

James Joiner
Gardner, Ma
www.anaveragepatriot.com